HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL BE MURDERED BY BLACKS TODAY?..........THE LOOTING ACROSS AMERICA is as black as the staggering murder and crime rates of BLACKS ACROSS AMERICA. Black Lives Matter? NO LIFE MATTERS TO BLACKS!

Thursday, August 17, 2017

BLOG: BARACK OBAMA IS A PSYCHOPATH. HE DOES NOTIDENTIFY WITH ANY POLITICAL CAUSE OTHER THAN POWER AND RICHES FOR HIMSELF. "Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview. Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power."Karin McQuillanWe know that Gov. Terry McAuliffe is a corruptocrat, joined at the hip to the Clintons. He pardoned sixty-thousand felons in order to ensure he delivered his state to the presidential election of Hillary Clinton. We know he would like to run for president himself."We know that Obama and his inner circle have set up a war room in his D.C. home to plan and execute resistance to the Trump administration and his legislative agenda. None of thesepeople care about the American people, or the fact that Trump won the election because millions of people voted for him.""What if Signer and McAuliffe, in conjunction with Antifa and other Soros-funded groups like Black Lives Matter, planned and orchestrated whathappened in Charlottesville and meant for events to unfold roughly as they did?"Along with groups like Antifa, BLM, and the host of anti-democratic groups George Soros funds to protest all around thenation, the media and the Democrats in Congress seek to overthrow an elected president in order to impose their vision of some sort of socialist utopia which of course will never exist. FROM THE FIRST DAY OF HIS FIRST
TERM, BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER HAD COMMENCED BUILDING A MUSLIM-STYLE
DICTATORSHIP FUNDED BY CRONY BANKSTERS AND MEXICO.

“Obama’s
new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the
anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said
that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the
“resistance.” Former high-level

Obama
campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing
direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for
example, features lectures by former campaign executive
Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing .”

I've been suspicious of the nature of the violence at this
supposed Alt-Right demonstration since the news first began breaking. It
is no secret that radical elements in the Democrat left have been routinely
utilizing violence when it suits their purposes. We also know via secret
tapings by Project Veritas that the Democratic Party has a semi-official
director of dirty ops, Dick Creamer, who hires, trains, and emplaces
professional disruptors to encounter, engage, and infiltrate conservative
demonstrations to foment violence, assuring that the demonstrations then become
the targets of negative media attention – naturally, against the conservative
side. Creamer was caught on videotape boasting about his nefarious
capabilities when he thought he was in friendly company.

So here we now have another blown supposedly conservative
demonstration, where violence erupts and people are killed, and guess who just
happens to be a ringleader of the various ultra-right to Alt-Right
organizations ranging from KKK and neo-Nazis to the kind of patriotic folks who
might go to a Flag Day celebration! Um, that would be our vaporous
political will o' the wisp, Jason Kessler, whose Occupy activities may well
have put him in operational cahoots with high-level Democrat operatives.
And owing to the leniency of Virginia open carry laws, too many of
Jason's followers just had to parade their personal armories in all their camo
combat gear, showing off their minuteman firepower. My first reaction at
seeing those clowns strutting down the street like they were in Mosul was, like
that of many of my fellow NRA members and military veterans, shaking my fist
and yelling at the TV, "No! No! No, you idiots!
No!" And that kind of award-winning stupidity makes me wonder
if the head planner for the event, Jason Soros...er, Kessler, didn't have that
firepower demonstration all lined up and ready to go precisely to make those
right-wing tools look just like the fools they were being, while scaring
the bejeezus out of the lefties, blacks, and MSM
twerps.

There's still not enough evidence on the actual violence, other
than the schizophrenic kid who ran over the woman, to make any kind of
assessment as to who did what in the confrontations between the right-wing
demonstrators and the surprisingly strong counter-demonstration. I have
to wonder if this Kessler fellow, strong Barack Obama-supporter that he is, had
a hand in making sure his Alt-Right marchers were clearly guaranteed to encounter
a strong crowd of riled up counter-protesters as well. The reporting of Kessler's background, as well as that of Charlottesville mayor and Democrat
activist Mike Signer and Vice Mayor Wes Bellamy, has convinced me that
Charlottesville was a Democratic Party black operation, planned, organized, and carried out to its successful conclusion, to make the media portray all these
conservative whites as stupid, racist, and violent. I believe that it was
done by this soulless young man, who succeeded in selling himself to the
dumb-bunny right-wingers as one of them

In 2013, California lawmakers passed legislation that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses if they can prove to the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) their identity and state residency. The plan was one of the largest victories to date by the open borders lobby.… JOHN BINDER – BREITBART.com

OBAMA’S NEW HOME IN WASHINFROM THE MAGAZINE

Shadow President?

Barack Obama’s permanent residency in Washington breaks precedent and makes him the effective head of the anti-Trump opposition.

After leaving the White House in January 2017, Barack Obama and his family set out to do what all newly retired presidents have done—go back home, or find a new one. In Obama’s case, though, the new residence is in Washington, D.C. At first, the Obamas presented their choice as temporary—they wanted to let their younger daughter, Sasha, finish high school in Washington, they said—but their purchase of an 8,200-square-foot, $8 million mansion suggests a permanent stay. Obama’s postpresidency is thus shaping up to be virtually unique in American history: rather than departing Washington, he is planting his flag there, establishing, in effect, a shadow presidency.

Obama’s move breaks with long-standing precedent. Conscious of threats to the safe transfer of executive power in the young republic, America’s early presidents departed Washington on the expiration of their terms. After relinquishing his commission as general following victory over the British, George Washington was compared with Cincinnatus, the retired Roman general who assumed emergency powers, saved Rome, and then returned to his plow. Washington repeated his valiant act when he declined a third term as president—Garry Wills calls him a “virtuoso of resignations”—and set the standard for future executives by going home when his political work was done.

The American ideal of a president is essentially republican: a citizen steps forward to serve the government and returns to private life when his term is up. Washington’s diaries and correspondence of 1797 are consumed with matters of housekeeping, husbandry, and accounts. Mount Vernon had gone to seed, and Washington was forced to shore up his personal finances. Though he stayed abreast of national events and voiced his opinions to his associates, he stayed out of the affairs of government; keeping a safe physical distance from the capital reinforced that resolution.

Following Washington’s model, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe each returned to their farms, in varying degrees of insolvency. True, John Quincy Adams, finding retirement dull, soon returned to public service as a congressman, a role he embraced and thrived in, but his ambitions were not imperial. Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren went home, too, when their terms in the White House were finished.

In the modern era, only one other former president remained in Washington after his term of office ended. Stroke victim Woodrow Wilson took up residence on S Street—just a few blocks away from the Obamas’ new Kalorama home. But Wilson was an invalid—indeed, he spent the last 18 months of his presidency in seclusion, with his wife largely managing the affairs of state. Unlike Obama, he was in no position to assert his postpresidential authority or impose himself as a presence on the national stage.

Harry Truman retired to Missouri, broke, in 1953. Dwight Eisenhower retired to Gettysburg, eight years later. In 1969, Lyndon Johnson lit his first cigarette in 15 years, telling his daughters, “I’ve now raised you girls. I’ve now been president. Now it’s my time!” He went to his ranch, grew a ponytail, and died within three years. Richard Nixon skulked off to California and reengineered himself as a statesman, Gerald Ford made himself rich, and Jimmy Carter became a professional humanitarian. Ronald Reagan rode off into the sunset. George H. W. Bush splits his time between Houston and Maine; his son George W., a full-time Texan, paints. Bill Clinton arguably broke the mold through his efforts to install his wife as president, but even that ambitious enterprise was centered in New York, not Washington.

True, some ex-presidents have plotted returns to office. When Grover Cleveland left the White House in 1889, his wife, Frances, told a staff member to keep everything in place because she and her husband would be returning in four years. They did. But Cleveland was an outlier. (He’s also the only president to serve two nonconsecutive terms.)

Traditionally, former presidents gave their successors a lengthy grace period, during which they refrained from critiquing them: George W. Bush waited until 2015 before criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. By contrast, Obama, only two weeks after Donald Trump’s November victory, announced that he would take on the new president “if necessary.” Necessity arose quickly: Obama held a conference call that month with staff members of his “social welfare” nonprofit Organizing for Action, the successor organization to his Obama for America campaign. The ex-president told the depressed troops to “get over it” and “move forward.” Ten days after leaving office, Obama said that he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests. Now, recent news reports indicate that Obama is planning a return to the national stage as soon as this Fall, and that he wants to take an "active role" in running the Democratic Party.

Obama’s new home in Washington has been

described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump

opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has

said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned

himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level

Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety

of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s

initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example,

features lectures by former campaign executive Sara

El-Amine, author of theObama Organizing

Handbook. Former White House deputy chief of

staff Jim Messina runs Organizing for Action.

Obama and his affiliated organizations are not addressing broadly humanistic policy goals, in the model of the Carter Center or even the Clinton Global Initiative. Rather, Obama is the spearhead of a movement seeking to obstruct the administration of his successor. By establishing himself so visibly within the nation’s capital, Obama is effectively turning the postpresidency—up to now, a venerable, if vague, institution—into something more ominous.

Seth Barron is associate editor of City Journal and project director of the NYC Initiative at the Manhattan Institute.

August 16, 2017

Washington Post on Joe Arpaio: 'Authoritarianism' to enforce immigration law

"These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty

JAMES WALSH –

THE OBAMA HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA

“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times

Europe falls to the Muslims as

America did to the invading

Mexicans!

The Goal of the Democratic Party: Overthrow of 'The System'

The Democratic Party has morphed over time from being a party that was pro-labor; anti-greed; and, via the New Deal, a supporter of demand-side Keynesian economics to being the party that is against "The System" and anti-capitalist. Instead of upholding national goals and national identity, it has taken the side of tribalism, where identity politics is the end-all and be-all.

The epicenter of this shift from being progressive or liberal to being neo-Marxist, neo-fascist, and subversive of too many established social, political, and economic norms began in the 1960s. Conceptual and practical shifts, especially in the philosophy of education, merged with other developments both in the anti-Vietnam War movement and in the burgeoning drug culture.

During the sixties, Jonathan Kozol came out with a book Death at An Early Age, about his experiences teaching for one year in the Boston public schools. His conclusion was that much more money had to be spent to uplift the schools. This philosophy – if you can even call it a philosophy – became his personal hobby horse for decades. And it still is a mantra among liberal circles, only now liberals have morphed into a radicalized leftist agenda that goes a lot farther than the liberals of that earlier period. Throwing excessive amounts of money at social and economic problems has become a norm – and it has not worked.

Kozol's call for reform became hooked into the human potential movement and built on the idea that a different attitude toward and relationship between the teacher and student could get results that "traditional education" could not attain. So these two streams – throwing more money at the schools via per pupil expenditures and tinkering with traditional teaching modalities – began to merge. Howard Gardner's "multiple intelligences" found traction despite the lack of studies supporting it, and the realistic understanding that some people were smarter than others was gradually diluted by the centrality of self-esteem and need for more "cooperative learning" (presumably opposed to traditional "competitive learning").

Fritz Perls was a leading spokesman for gestalt learning. Here, the idea was to get away from discrete facts, and to develop our capacity to see reality as a whole rather than in a factual and limited way. He succeeded marvelously. There are now millions of students in high schools and colleges who will tell you that whites, especially white males, are inherently racist. Ask them how they know this, and they will only be too happy to tell you: look how Columbus treated the Indians, and we had slavery for hundreds of years. That's gestalt!

Then throw into the mix the anti-authority and anti-American pounding the left was giving the USA during the Vietnam War. This played on the fear of high school students in particular of being drafted into the army and being sent to risk their lives in the jungles of Vietnam. Their basic fear – or shall we say unpatriotic cowardice? – now became rationalized as a righteous antagonism against a wicked, self-serving government. The antiwar advocates portrayed the "hawks" of both parties as people whose irrational anti-communist agenda had caused them to lose perspective.

SDS and other antiwar groups claimed that the power-trippers of both parties were so obsessed with their rigid and irrational anti-communism that they ignored the legitimate need of the Vietnam people for unity and for self-governance after years of colonial subservience to the French. For SDS and other activist groups, communism was not the threat our pro-war leaders proposed; instead, we had to recognize that Ho Chi Minh was a national hero of the Vietnamese people who had their best interest in mind. Communism is just another name for freedom in the Vietnamese context, and not the political bogeyman our warlords were trying to make it.

From being the heroic saviors of Europe in WWII and of Korea in the early fifties, we found ourselves internally being portrayed by the antiwar militants as demonic exploiters of the Vietnamese people and a force for no good in Southeast Asia.

Thus, as noted, liberal blame of our educational institutions for student failure to learn, and blame of society for its unwillingness to sufficiently support education, expanded to connect with the human potential movement. Then those two streams intersected with the intense anti-authority stream of the antiwar movement. These three streams in turn converged with a fourth that also began in the 1960s – namely, the counter-culture embrace of the expanding drug culture. In that culture, not only was "weed" king, but a new hallucinogenic drug, LSD, was being used by increasing numbers of high school students, as well as college undergraduates and graduate students.

Use of this drug was promoted by Richard Alpert and Timothy Leary. Both had begun their careers as Harvard professors who promoted the use of LSD on the Harvard campus, at which point they were fired. They were portrayed by their supporters as modern-day Socrateses – like Socrates, persecuted for corrupting the youth while actually freeing the youth from the bondage of their own middle-class, commercially oriented mindsets.

This writer was personally informed by a friend who had taken 75 "trips" on LSD that it freed one from his ego and fixed ideas of "reality" and opened the door to an alternate universe. After his 75 "trips," my friend had to be straitjacketed and forcibly removed from his apartment to be incarcerated for drug withdrawal and observation at Massachusetts General Hospital for 45 days.

As these four streams of antisocial and anti-authority ideology converged, they became a raging river, lasting until our very day. That raging river is called "We Hate The System."

What is "The System"? The system is the entire legal and economic structure that can be designated as capitalism combined with the legal and political structures of law roughly called "constitutionalism." Constitutionalism includes (1) federalism, which balances the respective authority of the states and the federal government; (2) checks and balances among the three branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial; and (3) the sociological unity founded on the more vaguely stated, yet nonetheless real, premises of one nation under God; protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and the abiding presence of natural and inalienable rights. In this conceptual troika, personal liberty and responsibility are forever intertwined. Both the law and the individual receive total respect, and each complements the other.

Thus, we can see over the 50 years, from the mid-sixties to the present, that we are facing an attack on our cultural, political, social, legal, and economic identity. The attack has been embraced not merely by demonstrators or by an immature counter-culture. Rather, it has been embraced substantially by one of our two political parties. Dark and difficult days lie ahead as we struggle to maintain the viability of the institutions we need and love.

FROM THE FIRST DAY OF HIS FIRST TERM, BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER HAD COMMENCED BUILDING A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP FUNDED BY CRONY BANKSTERS AND MEXICO.

*

*

“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level

Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing .”

August 16, 2017

Washington Post on Joe Arpaio: 'Authoritarianism' to enforce immigration law

According to the Washington Post, Sheriff Joe was an authoritarian who somehow was very strict on actual law. The Post never had a problem with Obama and Eric Holder picking and choosing which laws to enforce. Apparently, it's a sin to enforce the law, while it's a virtue to consider oneself above the law.

How about mayors, governors, and ex-presidents who think they don't have to obey immigration laws?

Obama went after Sheriff Joe and Arizona for wanting to enforce immigration laws while letting people who flipped the bird at immigration laws skate.

When Obama was president, cities and states had no rights at all to enforce immigration laws, but now that Trump is president, the states and cities have all the rights.

I wonder if WaPo writers can spot the difference in their own reporting.

JOHN BINDER

CALIFORNIA MOVES CLOSER TO FINAL ANNEXATION BY MEXICO DE FACTO CITIZENSHIP PER LA RAZA:

In 2013, California lawmakers passed legislation that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses if they can prove to the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) their identity and state residency. The plan was one of the largest victories to date by the open borders lobby.… JOHN BINDER – BREITBART.com

Charlottesville and Its
Aftermath: What if It Was a Setup?

The
ridiculous campaign by virtually every media outlet, every Democrat and far too
many squishy Republicans to label Trump some kind of racist and Nazi
sympathizer is beginning to have the stink of an orchestrated smear.
The conflagration in Charlottesville is beginning to feel like a
set-up, perhaps weeks or months in the planning. Planned by whom?
Time may tell. We know that Michael Signer, the mayor of Charlottesville,
declared his city to be the "capital of the resistance" just
after Trump's inauguration. We know that Gov. Terry McAuliffe is a corruptocrat,
joined at the hip to the Clintons. He pardoned sixty-thousand felons in
order to ensure he delivered his state to the
presidential election of Hillary Clinton. We know he would like to run
for president himself.

We
know that Obama and his inner circle have set up a war room in his D.C. home to
plan and execute resistance to the Trump administration and his legislative
agenda. None of these people care about the American people, or the fact
that Trump won the election because millions of people voted for him.
They suggest those deranged persons who gathered in Charlottesville as members
of one of several fringe groups, Unite The Right, neo-Nazi or KKK, are Trump's
base -- as if there are more than a few hundred or thousand of them throughout
the country. There are not enough of them to affect anything or elect
anyone. Those who are actual members of these small groups are most
likely mentally ill to one degree or another. Trump has disavowed them all,
over and over and over again. Liz Crokin, an entertainment reporter and
no fan of Trump, wrote in 2016 that she had
covered Trump for over a decade and in all that time, no one had ever
suggested he was racist, homophobic, or sympathetic to white supremacists.
That all began after he announced his campaign. It is as fake a narrative
as the "Russia collusion" meme. The left set out to defame
Trump from moment one. When he won the election, their shock, dismay and
intolerance for every opinion that differs from their own shifted into
hysterical overdrive. They mounted their crusade to destroy his
presidency on Nov. 9, 2016.

What
if Signer and McAuliffe, in conjunction with Antifa and other Soros-funded
groups like Black Lives Matter, planned and orchestrated what happened in
Charlottesville and meant for events to unfold roughly as they did? If
they did, it was icing on their sick, immoral cake. If this was all
part of a plan, one would hope those behind it suffer for their part in and
responsibility for the tragic death of a young woman, Heather Heyer. The
"founder" of Unite The Right, Jason Kessler, was an activist
with Occupy Wall Street and Obama supporter.

Jason Kessler at Charlottesville City Hall, August 13, 2017

He
sees himself as a professional provocateur. What if he was a ringer, a phony
who revels in riling up some crazy people for some political purpose? We
know the left is skilled in all manner of dirty tricks. That sort of
thing was Robert Creamer's job for the
Hillary campaign, hiring thugs to incite violence that could then be blamed on
Trump supporters. Think of Ferguson, Baltimore, Berkeley, etc.
Antifa and BLM are every bit as fascist as any of the supremacist groups; they
are more violent and there are more of them. Why is the left so afraid to
admit this fact? Even Peter Beinart did in the Atlantic, written before last Saturday.

Since
that day, the call to remove the statues on display that honor any members of
the Confederacy has become shrill and frenzied. Erasing American
history benefits no one and only condemns us to repeat past mistakes. The
supremacist groups had a permit; they had applied months earlier. The
Antifa and Black Lives Matter groups did not have a permit. The local
police at some point, on whose order we do not know, turned the pro-statue
groups toward the Antifa and BLM groups, many of whom were armed with lethal
weapons - soda cans filled with cement, bottles filled with urine, baseball
bats and boards with screws protruding to do maximum harm, and improvised
flamethrowers. These are the people who initiated the violence. How
was this not a planned melee? Pit groups of demented racists -- all
of them on both sides are certainly that -- against each other and violence is
sure to occur. (Certainly, there were decent people among the protestors
and counter-protesters who had no affiliation with the supremacist groups or
Antifa or BLM. Heather Heyer was among them.)

Trump
spoke out on Saturday and his statement was perfectly
fine given the known facts at the time. But the media reacted as though
he had defended the supremacist groups. He did not; not even close.
It was as though no matter what Trump said, they were going to attack his
remarks as being insufficient. When he reiterated his horror of the brawl
the next day and named the groups present, they again reacted as if he
had defended the supremacist groups because he said there was mayhem committed
by both sides. He correctly stated that there was violence perpetrated by
members of all the groups present. The media was apoplectic even though
they surely knew what he said was true. Reporters on the scene saw the
police stand down. Only one of them reported that truth. One has to wonder if
talking points were distributed before the event took place and before Trump
said a word about it.

The
Democratic Party is no longer liberal, it is leftist. It is not
progressive, it is regressive and repressive. It seeks to overturn the
First Amendment. It means to indoctrinate, and has, successive
generations via public and private education. It is becoming ever more
fascist by the day. Along with groups like Antifa, BLM, and the host of
anti-democratic groups George Soros funds to protest all
around the nation, the media and the Democrats in Congress seek to overthrow an
elected president in order to impose their vision of some sort of socialist
utopia which of course will never exist. What will result if they get their way is a Venezuela-style two-tiered class system, the ultra rich and the
very poor who are kept in their place by economic and social control. The
millions of people who see the left for what it has become see this. It
is why they voted for Trump.

It is
disheartening to see so many American elites, privileged in wealth and position
within the media and/or government be so completely of one, unthinking
mind. They all have braces on their brains (Auntie
Mame). So afraid to buck the rigid mindset of their peers, they have
become mouthpieces for their own group identity. Do they believe the
nonsense they spew? Who knows? Those in Congress, all the Democrats
and the anti-Trump Republicans essentially care about one thing and one thing
only: getting re-elected. They cannot afford to offend their donors or the lobbyists whose largesse fills their coffers. So they trip over each
other getting to the nearest camera to align themselves with whatever opinion
they think will put them on the right side of the money people. They are wrong so often.

Finally,
Trump's press conference on Tuesday made the left's
heads explode. Why? Because everything he said was absolutely
true. He does not play by their tyrannical PC rules. He said what
was true and that room full of puerile reporters shouting insults at him could
not handle the truth. They want what they want tobe true but it just is not. This
entire episode, the behavior of all those protesters in Charlottesville and the
bizarre behavior of the media will likely drive future voters to Trump, not
away from him. Millions more than those who voted for him are as likely
to be sick to death of the self-righteous preening of the talking heads:
Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper, Don Lemon, Shep Smith, etc. There must be a
contest to see who can appear to be the most egregiously triggered by what
Trump did or did not say.

So
were the events of Saturday the result of a despicable
plan to further undermine Trump? There was plenty of time and Charlottesville
is the "capital of resistance." If it was, it was evil
and deadly and the people involved need to be prosecuted. Or is this a
wild conspiracy theory? Perhaps. But the pieces fit. Will the DOJ
and the FBI actually investigate the many mysteries that surround the events of
that day? Not likely. The left in this country has long been and
seems to remain above the law. But someday, maybe someone will come
forward and tell the truth. What is certain is that the violence could
easily have been prevented with the common sense strategies civilized cities
put in place. America deserves much better from its media and its elected
officials. The only person remembering why he is there is Donald Trump.

Editor's note: An error on the purpose of McAuliffe's
pardoning of 60,000 felons that ran in an earlier version of the piece has been
corrected.

"What will result if they get their way is a Venezuela-style two-tiered class system, the ultra rich and the very poor who are kept in their place by economic and social control." By Patricia McCarthy

"These
figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in
America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to
be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human
toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty

AMERICA UNRAVELS:

Millions of children go hungry as the super- rich gorge themselves.

*

"The top 10 percent of Americans now own roughly
three-quarters of all household wealth."

*

"While
telling workers there is “not enough money” for wage increases, or to fund
social programs, both parties hailed the recent construction of the U.S.S.
Gerald Ford, a massive aircraft carrier that cost $13 billion to build,
stuffing the pockets of numerous contractors and war profiteers."

MEXICO: AMERICA’S DRUG DEALER!

The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality,
with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an
extent not seen since the 1920s.

“This study follows reports released over
the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due
to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall
leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy
of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.”

FROM THE FIRST DAY OF HIS FIRST
TERM, BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER HAD COMMENCED BUILDING A MUSLIM-STYLE
DICTATORSHIP FUNDED BY CRONY BANKSTERS AND MEXICO.

*

*

“Obama’s
new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the
anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said
that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the
“resistance.” Former high-level

Obama
campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing
direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for
example, features lectures by former campaign executive
Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing .”

In the July/August version of the Atlantic,
columnist Peter Beinart wrote an article titled, “How the Democrats Lost Their
Way on Immigration.”

“The next Democratic presidential candidate
should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must
abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented
population to zero.”

Peter Beinart, a frequent contributor to
the New York Times, New York Review of Books, Haaretz,
and former editor of the New Republic, blames immigration for
deteriorating social conditions for the American working class: The supposed
“costs” of immigration, he says, “strain the very welfare state that liberals
want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom
immigrants compete.”

The myth, which liberals like myself find
tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves,
Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a
feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full
story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A
decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock
many progressives today.

Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to
listen to more titles.In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration
wreaks

havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of

the
rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds

alone.”In 2006,
a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration

reduces the wages of domestic
workers who compete with

immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage
immigrants is

also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the
inflow

of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator

wrote,
“When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration

demonstrations, I sometimes
feel a flush of patriotic resentment.

When I’m forced to use a translator to
communicate with the guy

fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator
was Barack Obama.
Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged
its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to
citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that
low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and
strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals
today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely
painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform
called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot
continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented,
and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally,
and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language
was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a
problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on
the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration
section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country
“illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the
word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,”
says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic
Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is
passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this
come to be?

There are several explanations for liberals’
shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground
has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades
preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented
population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.

But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The
number of undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down
significantly, after all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic
concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today.

What’s
Wrong With the Democrats?A larger explanation is political.
Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the
country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win
the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure
white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino
base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward
the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s
2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of
wandering in a desert.”As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they
were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for
reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the
administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June
2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the
administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented
immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various
other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing
growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of
his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who
could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.”
Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate
America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B
visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and
News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly
immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped
found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.
This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for
Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard
way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for
president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox.
Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider
“sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open
borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he
scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would
love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3
an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have
to raise wages in this country.”
Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among
economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate
attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant
labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the
sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away
from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post
titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The
senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S.
are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven
incorrect.”Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016,
FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this
issue.”
But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually
been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006,
Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of
low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable
that this means a fall in wages.”
It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today.
To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a
near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by
Lincoln Agnew. Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty;
Keystone-France; Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures /
Corbis)There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to …
immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result
of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes
de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and
politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.
Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for,
or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations.
Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops
up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New
York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the
Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading
scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend
to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is
indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into
high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his
research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program.
Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause.
Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions
economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from
Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work,
and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic
research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus,
Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their
“desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists
have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George
Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s,
his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes
its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social
scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his
perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who
takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s
claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of
policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of
discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the
wrong conclusion.”

None of this means that liberals should oppose
immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants
and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be
valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too.
Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working
age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs
like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to
boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that “natives’
incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.”

The problem is that, although economists differ about the
extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants
compete. And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even
a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the
least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the
most. America’s immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups
liberals care about most—the native-born poor and the immigrant poor—against
each other.
One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which
allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the
country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach
that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this
idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who
are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts
the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the
poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”?
A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to
wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration
harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and
service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the
money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately,
while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it
also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates,
immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have
larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes.
According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with
children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and
12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children.
In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the
money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in
the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to
expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants
compete.
What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and
others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less
willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to be less generous when
large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s
research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation
just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and
cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.
Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that
if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans
would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of
community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our
politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he
declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we
will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals must take seriously
Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and
greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white
Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This
means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.

Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting
immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers
that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America’s
diversity less, and its unity more.

Writing last year in American Sociological Review,
Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis,
examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants.
Foremost among them is an immigrant’s legal status. Given that natives often
assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren’t, it follows that illegal
immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the
U.S. legally. That’s why conservatives rail against government benefits for
undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from
receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant
to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting
people who have entered the country illegally.
Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a
separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by
many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require
immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars
believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation.
And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity
between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not
equal under the law.The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again
and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his
or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For
liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to
citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States.
The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential
run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship
doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S.
illegally.
Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto.
Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented
themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to
be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and
verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would
presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able
to find work.
In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as
a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?Schachter’s
research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward
immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because,
according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning
English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton
proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she
rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying,
among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.”
The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by
Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the
center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently,
native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more
likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will
also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who
consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam
Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a
voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People
living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.”
In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been
heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen
Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:

Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and
applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to
aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased
expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and
behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit
intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our
sameness.

The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those
words to memory. There’s a reason Barack Obama’s declaration at the 2004
Democratic National Convention that “there is not a liberal America and a
conservative America … There is not a black America and white America and
Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America” is
among his most famous lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity.
They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity. And Obama’s ability to
effectively do the latter probably contributed to the fact that he—a black man
with a Muslim-sounding name—twice won a higher percentage of the white vote
than did Hillary Clinton.In 2014, the University of California listed melting
pot as a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary
Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she
had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and
globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the
slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined
to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration
brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by
focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?
Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be
president today.

August 11, 2017

Russian Collusion in Democrat Inner Circle?

There
has been enthusiastic collusion by the leadership of the Democratic Party with
the Russian disinformation campaign to destroy President Donald Trump. (See "A Brief History of 'Fake News'" on AT.)
The Democrat willingness to collude with Russia to overturn our democratically
elected president is unprecedented. There is the infamous case of Ted
Kennedy approaching the Kremlin to help Democrats defeat Reagan, but never
before has collusion with our enemies by a non-communist party been sustained
and widespread.

What
has changed? We are reaping the results of a multi-decade effort by the
communist and socialist left. Leftists have finally dominated and transformed the Democratic Party – into something vicious and
dangerous to our republic.

Obama
openly boasted that radicalized and mostly non-white Millennials will soon give
leftists a permanent majority. Our Constitution and two-party system were
to be thrown in the dustbin of history. When Trump destroyed their plans
by winning the 2016 election, hard-left Democrats weren't willing to give
up power. The niceties of democracy, where the voters get to chose their
leaders, do not fit the communist credo Obama and his inner circle were raised
on.

As
I wrote previously, Obama's entire innermost circle were
children of communists. That does not happen by coincidence.

With the help of a partisan, unethical press, the
Democrats normalized Obama's every aberrant trait. But Obama is aberrant.
He is a Democrat in name only – in reality, he is a hard left "red
diaper baby" – as were Valerie
Jarrett and David
Axelrod. Obama has had literally lifelong
radical ties, starting with his grandfather and mother, as well as his Kenyan
father, and Obama's beloved teenage mentor, child molester Frank
Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party. According to
Paul Kengor,
Frank Davis's political work for the Soviets got him placed on the FBI's
Security Index, so he could be immediately arrested in a national emergency –
the Cold War equivalent of our terrorist watchlist.

In
the White House, President Obama surrounded himself with more red diaper babies
and communist-supporters. CIA
director John Brennan voted for the
Communist Party candidate in the 1976 presidential election. Obama
biographerDavid
Maraniss was a red diaper baby. So was
Obama's pick to head Homeland Security, Jeh
Johnson.

Cold
War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communistbackground
in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby
President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview. Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation
include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the
openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into
power.

Axelrod
himself was discovered and launched in his career by Stalinists in Chicago, the
Cantor family.

Harry was active in the old Industrial Workers of
the World and had been secretary of the Boston Communist Party. ... In 1930, he
ran for governor of Massachusetts on the Communist Party ticket. After that, he
sojourned to the Motherland, taking his entire family to Moscow with him,
including his son David, who one day would come know David Axelrod. ...

Being
the child of communists clearly does not make you a communist when you grow
up. It can make you a savvy fighter of communists, as David Horowitz
exemplifies. But when did Obama reject the radical Marxist beliefs he
once openly espoused? In college, he tells us he sought out Marxist
professors and radical students (think the creepy SDS students you knew in
college). A Marxist student at Occidental College confirms that Obama was an outright Marxist. When he
graduated from Columbia, Obama tells us, he attended radical socialist
conferences, which gave him his road
map in life, with their plan to put a stealth
black candidate in the White House.

After
law school, Obama's success in Chicago was based on the help of self-avowed communist Bill Ayers. Obama's start in politics
was as the anointed successor of an openly socialist state rep who was active
in communist circles. Obama joined the socialist New Party,
which rejected the Democratic Party. Obama's calling in life, to which he
vows to return post-presidency, was work as a hard-left Alinskyite radical
agitator ("community organizer"). Obama was a 20-year member of
an openly Marxist church whose members had to take a pledge against the middle
class. So when did this man become a pragmatic centrist? The day
his Marxist backers decided to make him president?

Chief
among these backers was Valerie Jarrett, whom Judicial
Watch uncovered as another scion of a
hardcore multi-generation communist family on the FBI watch list as a possible
security threat to America.

Jarrett's dad ... Dr. James Bowman, had extensive
ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows ... "has
long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line" and engages in
un-American activities. ... The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a
business partnership between Jarrett's maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor,
and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.

Jarrett's father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett ...
appeared on the FBI's Security Index and was considered a potential Communist
saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he
was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago
that would "disseminate the Communist Party line among ... the middle
class."

It's been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a
Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields
tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has
connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim
Brotherhood.

Paul
Kengor summarizes the political import of a Democratic Party headed by
a president and his two closest advisers, and the head of Homeland Security,
all from communist families:

I've suffered ... a mix of amazement, agony, and
despair for what has happened in this country. They are at once disturbing and
depressing, yet further confirmation that the most politically extreme
individuals who once agitated and propagandized in our blessed country were
able to place their political children as high as the White House in the
21st century. For the old comrades, it simply took time for the seeds to
root and flourish – and only then with the harvest made possible by really
oblivious American voters who don't understand the ash-heap of ideological
baggage they've permitted to be brought into the country's first house.

There
is collusion with Russia going on in American politics today. It has
actually been going on for a long time. (See Victor David Hanson on
Obama'scollusion in the 2012 elections.) President Trump is the
target of the collusion. So are we all, all his voters, all Americans who
believe in our constitutional republic.

The
great mistake of the colluders is they cannot hide behind lies and media corruption,
as the hardcore American left has done all these years. It is all out in
the open now. The stink of the Mueller witch hunt is in our
nostrils. It is sickening, but the stench strengthens our resolve.
We are not going to let them annul our victory in the 2017 election with dirty
tricks.

The author served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Senegal, was a
clinical social worker and psychotherapist, and is an author whose a mystery
novels highlight the wildlife and peoples of Kenya. She currently writes for American Thinker.

Judicial Watch, a
conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to California Secretary
of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election Integrity Project, noting that
there are 11 counties in the state with more registered voters, and alleging that
the state may be out of compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter
Registration Act (NVRA).

The letter reads, in
part:

NVRA Section 8
requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so as to maintain an
accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting federal elections.1 As
you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA to protect the integrity
of the electoral process. Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on
the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines
voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections.

…

As the top election
official in California, it is your responsibility under federal law to
coordinate California’s statewide effort to conduct a program that reasonably
ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate.

Judicial Watch lays
out the specifics:

“[T]here were
more total registered voters

than there were adults
over the age of 18

living in each of the
following eleven (11)

counties: Imperial
(102%), Lassen (102%),

Los Angeles (112%),
Monterey (104%), San

Diego (138%), San
Francisco (114%), San

Mateo (111%), Santa
Cruz (109%), Solano

(111%), Stanislaus
(102%), and Yolo (110%).”

The letter notes that
the percentage in L.A.

Country may be as
high as 144%.

The letter contains a
threat to sue the Secretary of State if Padilla does not remove from the
rolls “persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of death, change in
residence, or a disqualifying criminal conviction, and to remove noncitizens
who have registered to vote unlawfully.”

It gives Padilla 14
days to respond, and 90 days to correct alleged violations of the law.

Padilla has been one
of the main voices in opposition to President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory
Commission on Election Integrity, refusing to share voter data with it on
the argument that doing so would “legitimize false claims of massive
election cheating last fall.”

President Trump has
claimed that he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential
election if not for illegal voting, and his administration has singled outCalifornia
as a possible contributor to that margin.

The Election Integrity
Project is a California-based volunteer organization that
monitors voting irregularities.

The homeless, downtrodden, and poor who show up at drug detox
centers all must show photo identification to get treatment. It's done to
prevent them from going to more than one center for whatever maintenance fix
they may be receiving at the first center. It is obvious that the
government knows everyone has the capability to get a photo ID, so why do so
many Democrats block that requirement when it comes to voting? They use the
false arguments of voter intimidation while dismissing the real issue that
maintaining a fair election is extremely important to maintaining our
freedoms.

These are the same Democrats (and their media allies) who are
complaining that Russia supposedly interfered in our election process.
Yet they do everything they can to block commonsense photo ID
requirements that the majority of the public supports to ensure fair elections.
They call people racists who support these laws. The fact that they
fight these photo ID requirements shows they really don't care about the
integrity of the voting process.

The ID requirements at drug treatment facilities are intended to
prevent people from enrolling in multiple programs and selling opioid
medication such as methadone on
the black market, said a spokesman from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, adding that programs would be liable for misuse
of the medications.

Some detox centers will admit a person without ID first and make
time later to sort out the person's identity, but doing so comes at risk of
running afoul of federal and state regulations on dispensing medications,
experts said.

The government requires the poor and elderly to have a photo ID to
get food stamps, to open a bank account, to get welfare, to get Medicaid, and
to get Social Security among many other things. Yet..

Democrats will go to court to stop a state requiring people to get
a photo ID to vote, using the argument that it is racist. The fact that
they require photo IDs for so many other things the poor and minorities have to
do shows what a crock that argument is.

The only reason to block the photo ID laws for voting is to open
up voting to fraud.